If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

For those who can't make it to their voting precincts, Christie ordered election officials to allow displaced New Jersey voters to place their ballots electronically by submitting a mail-in ballot application via e-mail or fax. Once approved, the voter will be sent an electronic ballot that can, in turn, be e-mailed or faxed back to the county clerk.

Several years ago when my daughter lived in Seattle, you had to state a very good case to vote in person, Every registered voter was mailed his/her ballot and expected to return it before election day.

It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.A man is but a product of his thoughts. What he thinks, he becomes. Gandhi

Who is Bolat Bersebayev of Kazakhstan and why is he “monitoring” our polling places in Indianapolis, Indiana and Lansing Michigan? And who is Elchin Musaeyev of Azerbaijan, and why has he been tasked with monitoring the November 6 elections in Boston, Massachusetts, and Concord, New Hampshire?

Neither Kazakhstan nor Azerbaijan are notable as paragons of electoral virtue. Nor are they models of liberty, honesty, and decency. The facts show quite the opposite.

Kazakhstan is a brutal and corrupt dictatorship run by 72-year-old Nursultan Nazarbayev, a lifelong Communist who claims to have received 95.54 percent of the vote in the 2011 elections. No one believes the Kazakh election was anything other than a scripted event with a pre-set outcome. Put “Kazakhstan human rights” into your search engine and you’ll find abundant data from numerous sources confirming that efforts to exercise freedom of expression or freedom of assembly are met with baseball bats, bullets, and prison.

Azerbaijan may even be worse than Kazakhstan. In 2009, “President” Ilham Aliyev pushed through a constitutional amendment that now makes it possible for him to be president for life.

Few expect that he will ever leave office voluntarily. His father, Heydar Alieyev, who was a KGB thug under Joseph Stalin, rose to head the Azerbaijanian KGB, which he used ruthlessly to eliminate competitors and propel himself to rulership of what was then Soviet Azerbaijan. The elder Alieyev was appointed by Leonid Brezhnev to the top leadership of the Communist Party Central Committee and Yuri Andropov rewarded him with membership in the Soviet Politburo. After Azerbaijan’s supposed “independence” from the Soviet Union, Heydar Aliyev continued the Soviet-style rule to which he was accustomed. The dynastic succession from Heydar to his son Ilham was guaranteed by the KGB structures the elder Aliyev had put in place.

>>>

Most Americans are probably only vaguely aware — if at all — of theses unpleasant facts about Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. Nevertheless, news reports regarding the deployment across the United States of international election monitors from the UN-affiliated Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) continue to stir growing concern among American voters and public officials.

>>>

All of this is troubling for several reasons. First and foremost is the assault that it represents on national sovereignty and state sovereignty. As The New American’s election and voting expert Kurt Hyde pointed out in these pages in 2004 (“End UN Interference in Our Elections”), our Founding Fathers wisely left the conducting of elections — even national elections — up to the individual States. The federal government’s unconstitutional interference in our elections is bad enough; we certainly don’t need, and shouldn’t tolerate foreign countries and organizations interjecting themselves into our affairs, particularly those with such outrageous records.

The OSCE claims that its monitoring efforts are all in the interest of “transparency.” That is also a favorite term of the United Nations, the European Union, and leftist NGOs that operate in Stygian darkness while professing to be in favor of openness and light. In the interest of genuine transparency, the OSCE should make available full biographical information on its monitors, particularly detailing each individual’s history of service with his or her national government and membership in organizations and political parties. That might, at least, shed some light on the monitors’ qualifications. Another transparency matter concerns how much of the OSCE election monitoring effort is actually being funded by U.S. taxpayers. Still another transparency issue concerns the OSCE relationship with the “progressive” organizations in the United States that have requested the monitoring presence (see here and here).

This not the first time that OSCE monitors have been interjected into U.S. elections. As we have reported in previous years, these earlier electoral assaults helped establish precedents and began a process of conditioning Americans to accept UN subcontractors, such as OSCE, to monitor our elections. If allowed to continue, it is a virtual certainty that the number of monitors will continue to escalate with each successive election, their supposed “mandate” will grow ever wider, their criticism will grow more harsh, and their demands will become ever more assertive.

Here is a brief summary of just how well Mitt Romney did in shifting voters toward him in 2012 versus what took place in 2008:

Barack Obama netted FEWER Democrat votes in 2012 than were cast in 2008 by 3% points.

Mitt Romney earned MORE Republican votes in 2012 than were cast in 2008 by 3% points.

Barack Obama earned FEWER Black votes in 2012 than he did in 2008.

Mitt Romney by the way, earned MORE Black votes in 2012 than were cast for the Republican in 2008.

Mitt Romney earned MORE votes from both married men and married woman than were cast for Republicans in 2008, while also improving support among non-married men and woman by 2% from 2008 as well.

Mitt Romney earned MORE votes among liberals, moderates, and conservatives than were cast for the Republican candidate in 2008 – in fact, this improvement was by a full 7% over 2008 – a very significant improvement.

Mitt Romney earned more votes from Protestants, Catholics, and Jews than the Republican nominee received in 2008, including a 9-point improvement among Jewish voters alone.

The two top issues according to voters were the economy and the budget. Mitt Romney earned A 38 POINT ADVANTAGE OVER BARACK OBAMA on the top two issues of the election – and yet Romney was somehow defeated.

Lastly, regarding the following three personal trait issues – strong leader, shares my values, and has a vision for the future, Mitt Romney DOMINATED Barack Obama among 2012 voters by 45 points. And lost the election.

_________________________________

Here is the link to the data via the Washington Post. It is stunning, some might even say inconceivable, that a candidate improves in such categories as overall votes among Whites AND minorities, is ranked far ahead of their opponent in both the top two concerns among voters, as well as the three most important personal trait issues – and still loses the election.

That is exactly what happened last night. Somehow, someway…that is what happened to Mitt Romney – and to all who supported him.

See link below – and the dramatic shift in Republicans’ favor in 2012 vs 2008. A shift the resulted in a confounding loss that remains dubious at best.

I haven't linked to any of the stories because: 1) you can always -- always -- find some amount of voter fraud in any election; 2) sour grapes have a way of making conspiracy theories sound plausible, even to me; and 3) it interferes with my plans of going Galt.
But now we have some MSM reports which seem to confirm that this might be the case.
Now, I'm not saying that if these illegal activities are confirmed that Romney would have won the election. You might as well argue that had Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, dropped out of the race that we would have won. Or if we had a better turnout. Etc, etc.

In any close race, if any one of a number of variables is changed the outcome is changed.

My Dad and I used to endlessly argue this point whenever his preferred team lost a game and he'd blame it on the refs.

"Had they just not blown that one call, we'd have won!" He was always convinced the refs had it in for his team.

"Sure," I would say, "but had Magic just made that three pointer, we'd also have won. And Kareem hustled down the court one more time." You get the picture.
But, still .... Is this something?